4 ms·

How would a board seat even represent all of the employees? Would the arrangement be any less corrupt than the way unions represent workers? Would organized c

How would a board seat even represent all of the employees? Would the arrangement be any less corrupt than the way unions represent workers? Would organized crime get involved? Employees have power over the company. They can leave it for another company. At any time, actually. Companies have to compete for employees. Of course, employees CAN own stock and accumulate enough to get a seat, assuming they can agree. And that, of course, is the problem. Employees won't agree on everything so the majority of employees will get represented and the rest of the employees will not be represented. Winner-take-all decision making opens the door for corruption. It plagues our democracy. Why shouldn't it also plague corporate decision making? If you had an arrangement where employees voted on board issues and the YES employee votes were proportionally assigned to the YES side of the board vote and the NO employee votes were proportionally assigned to the NO side of the board vote, that would make a little more sense. But that would mean the workers would have to be privy to the board's discussions, which means the world will know what they discuss. So, without that proportionality, the employee representative can actually make backroom deals with the other board members. Deals that might benefit him but cost those he represents a lot.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
>Winner-take-all decision opens the door for corruption. In any representative decision making body, any individual decision is going to be a `winner-takes-all` decision for whoever likes the outcome. However representative bodies tend to need to make compromises over time, to make sure all of their constituents receive some of what they want.
- stretchwithme 8y ago
  Sorry, that should have read "Winner-take-all decision making opens the door for corruption." I'll correct this. It's the representative that is winner-take-all. And that gives him or her all of the power of those he allegedly represents. And that means he can be an influence peddler. This is the primary flaw in the US democracy, at least in its current form. In the original arrangement, the Senate was not affected by this and it was harder to game the entire system.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > However representative bodies tend to need to make compromises over time, to make sure all of their constituents receive some of what they want. No, they make compromises in order to ensure that they have sufficient support to get re-elected, which typically translates into screwing over the same minority of constituents repeatedly.
forapurpose 8y ago
There's a presumption in the parent that people who work for a living are corrupt and that managers and executives are not. IME, people are people, and there are plenty of corrupt managers and executives - I don't think I need to start listing examples - as well as workers. I don't see that either group should be denied representation or power on that basis - if we excluded people for such things, then there would be nobody left to run the place. > Employees have power over the company. They can leave it for another company. There is clearly a great power imbalance between a company of any size and one worker, unless that worker is a superstar (like a star coder). > Employees won't agree on everything so the majority of employees will get represented and the rest of the employees will not be represented. That's not how democracy works. In order to put together a majority, you have to make deals with different groups and not alienate those who you might need in the future. The 'majority' shifts over each issue and over time, and the leaders compete to please as many as possible. And regardless, I don't see what the parent is recommending: No power for workers because it will be imperfect/ What makes the current setup any better?
- stretchwithme 8y ago
  People risking their own money tend to be non-corrupt about managing it. Those who pay with other people's money tend to be more corrupt. It has nothing to do with the color of their collars. Either interests are aligned or they are not. When you pay the costs and get the benefits, you are less likely to be corrupt. When you get the benefits and the costs get shifted to somebody else, you are more likely to be corrupt. As I've already said, workers have power. They just don't have power that rightfully belongs to the owners. It seems like another way to create a monopoly over the labor supply and it would be destructive in the long run.
  - rexpop 8y ago
    > They just don't have power that rightfully belongs to the owners. Tell me more about how rightfully these venture firms acquire their capital?
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > People risking their own money tend to be non-corrupt about managing it. I don't think this theory matches reality. There is plenty of corruption in management and I don't think I need to provide specific examples. Also, plenty of managers are not risking their own money and, as individuals, their interests are not aligned at all with the business'. Plenty of startup founders screw their businesses for big exits; plenty of owners liquidate and leverage companies to suck out as much cash as they can before they dispose of them; plenty of CEOs think they are God, the company is their toy, and anything they want to do is fine; and there are plenty more dirty stories in the business world. Workers are risking their own jobs, futures, and money; generally they have less career flexibility than managers. If the auto plant closes, that's it. > rightfully That's part of our question, not the answer.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Employees have power over the company. They can leave it for another company." While technically true, in reality, it's not nearly the amount of power that the company has over employees. For one, except in very spectacular cases, a company is not going to fail because one or two employees decided to quit. However, an employee that does not have a job is going to starve and become homeless. Given that the company can take away the ability of the employee to be able to make rent and buy food, but the most the employee can do is jump to another job, I wouldn't extoll this as some equalizing power the workers have over the company.

AmericanChopper 8y ago

>Winner-take-all decision opens the door for corruption. In any representative decision making body, any individual decision is going to be a `winner-takes-all` decision for whoever likes the outcome. However representative bodies tend to need to make compromises over time, to make sure all of their constituents receive some of what they want.

stretchwithme 8y ago
Sorry, that should have read "Winner-take-all decision making opens the door for corruption." I'll correct this. It's the representative that is winner-take-all. And that gives him or her all of the power of those he allegedly represents. And that means he can be an influence peddler. This is the primary flaw in the US democracy, at least in its current form. In the original arrangement, the Senate was not affected by this and it was harder to game the entire system.
chimeracoder 8y ago
> However representative bodies tend to need to make compromises over time, to make sure all of their constituents receive some of what they want. No, they make compromises in order to ensure that they have sufficient support to get re-elected, which typically translates into screwing over the same minority of constituents repeatedly.

forapurpose 8y ago

There's a presumption in the parent that people who work for a living are corrupt and that managers and executives are not. IME, people are people, and there are plenty of corrupt managers and executives - I don't think I need to start listing examples - as well as workers. I don't see that either group should be denied representation or power on that basis - if we excluded people for such things, then there would be nobody left to run the place. > Employees have power over the company. They can leave it for another company. There is clearly a great power imbalance between a company of any size and one worker, unless that worker is a superstar (like a star coder). > Employees won't agree on everything so the majority of employees will get represented and the rest of the employees will not be represented. That's not how democracy works. In order to put together a majority, you have to make deals with different groups and not alienate those who you might need in the future. The 'majority' shifts over each issue and over time, and the leaders compete to please as many as possible. And regardless, I don't see what the parent is recommending: No power for workers because it will be imperfect/ What makes the current setup any better?

stretchwithme 8y ago
People risking their own money tend to be non-corrupt about managing it. Those who pay with other people's money tend to be more corrupt. It has nothing to do with the color of their collars. Either interests are aligned or they are not. When you pay the costs and get the benefits, you are less likely to be corrupt. When you get the benefits and the costs get shifted to somebody else, you are more likely to be corrupt. As I've already said, workers have power. They just don't have power that rightfully belongs to the owners. It seems like another way to create a monopoly over the labor supply and it would be destructive in the long run.
- rexpop 8y ago
  > They just don't have power that rightfully belongs to the owners. Tell me more about how rightfully these venture firms acquire their capital?
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > People risking their own money tend to be non-corrupt about managing it. I don't think this theory matches reality. There is plenty of corruption in management and I don't think I need to provide specific examples. Also, plenty of managers are not risking their own money and, as individuals, their interests are not aligned at all with the business'. Plenty of startup founders screw their businesses for big exits; plenty of owners liquidate and leverage companies to suck out as much cash as they can before they dispose of them; plenty of CEOs think they are God, the company is their toy, and anything they want to do is fine; and there are plenty more dirty stories in the business world. Workers are risking their own jobs, futures, and money; generally they have less career flexibility than managers. If the auto plant closes, that's it. > rightfully That's part of our question, not the answer.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"Employees have power over the company. They can leave it for another company." While technically true, in reality, it's not nearly the amount of power that the company has over employees. For one, except in very spectacular cases, a company is not going to fail because one or two employees decided to quit. However, an employee that does not have a job is going to starve and become homeless. Given that the company can take away the ability of the employee to be able to make rent and buy food, but the most the employee can do is jump to another job, I wouldn't extoll this as some equalizing power the workers have over the company.